The Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Jim,

I'm sure no one is denying the assistance the US has given the rest of world, or the debt that to some extent is owed to it. But your 'setting the record straight' is I guess the typical example of why people DO turn against Americans. You don't hear British tourists going to France and loudly saying how they saved the French in WWI and did just as much in WWII as the Americans. In fact, I have heard young Americans pointing out their important role in WWI more than I have heard young Britons pointing out theirs, which was arguably infinitely more important.

Or how much the Berliners should be thankful for the British planes and pilots who were involved in the airlift. Or any of the UN forces going on about how they also drove the Communists out of North Korea. I'm sure there will be no Australian tourists to East Timor when that's all over telling the Timorese how thankful they should be that we liberated them from the Indonesians.

The point is, it is not just America that helps other nations. Many countries do. Just because the US has a greater capability to help in no way gives its citizens 'bragging rights.'

And all this is without even considering those who argue that the US imposes its will on other countries.

Giving credit where credit is due is one thing (which I for one am more than prepared to do), but demanding credit is something completely different.

Just my thoughts. Going down into my bunker now.

Regards,

Simon

[Kirby]

Kory

My Grandfather died on the Lusitania. He was on his way to Britain to join their army to fight against the Germans. He left a young widow and two little sons. The reason he didn't "start when everyone else did" is because he died trying to get there.

Keep in mind, my family, like so many other American families, has a German surname.

Kirby

What does the 2nd amendment say about the right to keep and arm bears?

[Billy_Bishop]

<h1>HELLO?????</h1>

This forum is for the discussion of things WWI aviaition related!!

I know, my megathread hasn't exactly stuck to that, but it started out about WWI aviation, which is more than we can say about this thread!!

So how about we get back to discussing WWI aviation, or at least start the threads out that way, and leave this stuff for Delphi Forums?

Al Lowe
Imperial Net Staff Chaplain

You Australians should check out this link
AUSTRALIA GUN BAN RESULTS

I think you'll be surprised!

Jasta's wannabe lover.

[Reinout]

Dear all,

I'll probably get my head bitten off for this but I'd like to expand a little on some of the previous posts regarding the USA's involvement in conflicts all over the world.

I do not want you to think that I slate America for her efforts or that I try to belittle them. Spilled blood is spilled blood.

I would like however (there's always a however involved!) to point out that like in most instances regarding most countries, involvement in foreign conflicts or situations is rarely a matter of charity. There usually is a self-interest as well. The USA wasn't served with a German victory in WWI as the democratic countries France and Great-Britain owed the US a lot of money which the Americans would never see again if the democracies lost. A World War later, the USA was likewise not content with a Nazi-government dominating Europe and much of the Soviet Union. I didn't state all of the reasons the USA entere in either war as that in itself is not under discussion. What is under discussion is the matter of charity: most of the involvements had economical or political motives. There's absolutely no shame in that and it certainly does not take away anything from the efforts exerted by those participating in the war machine. That is my firm conviction and I apply it to all wars. Also note that while it is certainly true that the USA has carried the brunt of most if not all international military operations, they hardly ever were alone.

In the case of my country I can say that our population is reaching 16 million people now and consequently our worldwide ambitions in just about all fields are small or the least, limited. Our nation is a non-aggressive one and only participates in NATO and UN missions; though the contributions are small, they correspond to our modest means.

And military operations aren't the only way to give aid. We have spent billions of Guilders on the Ministry of Development which helps Third World countries financially and by supporting international programmes of aid in medicine, schooling, agriculture etc., so there are other ways in which nations with smaller armed forces can contribute to a better world.

I won't elaborate further but it is obvious that charity in world politics and conflicts is a rarity.

Kind regards,

Reinout

[stephen]

"A well-regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 1929, the National Guard was designated as a portion, but not all, of the US militia - the balance of it remaining a citizen force. The 2nd amendment was authored by James Madison and George Mason, who clearly demonstrated to Congress at the time (winter of 1791) precisely what their language meant, then wrote it down for posterity. Mason clearly stated that the militia and the standing army were two different things when he wrote "A well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen, free-holders, and other freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army..." The people ARE the militia, and the militia is NOT an army. Mason went on to recommend in his Fairfax County Militia Plan that every man is the community keep a musket in proper order, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gun flints, two bullet moulds, a cartouch box or powder horn and a bag for balls.

Samuel Adams also stated very clearly that "the Militia is composed of free citizens," therefore they did not need to fear a standing army from their own government. He also wrote that "the Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). Patrick Henry's famed "Liberty or Death" speech contained numerous references to an armed citizenry. Henry also wrote that the "great object is that every man be armed." In Virginia in 1776, Thomas Jefferson declared that "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land." Thomas Paine encouraged the ownership of private arms in "Common Sense." James
Madison later said that "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." This from the Second amendment's author!

continued...

[stephen]

continued...

"But didn't they really mean the National Guard?" Well, if the above references to the citezenry aren't enough, consider Madison's statement in the Federalist Papers, No. 46, where he referred to a "militia amounting to half a million men." In 1790, the entire population of the entire nation was just under 800,000! Madison could not have been referring to state reserve troops... there weren't enough human beings in the country! He was clearly referring to every able bodied man in the nation's population. Further, Richard Henry Lee wrote on the topic that "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." The WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE? Then on Jan. 14, 1790, George Washington again spoke of the PEOPLE, not the reserve army when he said "A free PEOPLE ought to be armed" (Boston Independent Chronicle).

In UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON, Criminal Action No. 6:98-CR-103-C, the US District Court of Northern Texas decided that "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. Id. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the STATES to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. Id. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized."

I could go on all day with this, but the point is indisputable. The Second amendment is an individual, personal right of every single American. Period. End of story. This is NOT a debatable issue. If you oppose the amendment, you should be voting to repeal the amendment, not redefine the clear language of the founders. To attempt to redefine the language is to base your movement on dishonesty and deception. You may disagree with their motives, their thinking and their reasoning, but you cannot disagree with their intent.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823

[Darryl]

All,

I do believe Mr Lowe has a point. Lately we DO seem to have digressed.

respectfully

Darryl

Simon,
You can run but you cannot hide. I never said that it was okay for Americans to go to other countries, where they are guests, and try to act like they own the place! Having stood many Shore Patrol duties, I used to like to bust people like that from my various commands. However, when one of these other foreign nationals gets on here and starts spouting B.S. I will naturally defend my country, I suppose of course that you don't quite feel the same way about your country Simon? How would the rest of the world have felt if the good old U.S. of A. would have told them to pound sand where the sun doesn't shine anytime they requested aid, assistance, intervention, etc. All of you might be singing a different national anthem right now. Reinout seems to be infested with the short term memory too! It would seem to me that in the Berlin Airlift, the effort was 90% if not totally an American venture. Could the Netherlands, or Australia, or Canada have stood against the Soviet Colossus alone? I think not, and if you could, then why didn't you? And as far as I'm concerned I would be more than happy to watch the rest of the world clean up it's own back yard and give the Americans time to work on our own domestic agenda. You do have those who would say that American's weren't involved in WW1 before 1918, but the Germans had saboteurs over here in New York, sinking ships and blowing up munitions when America was just practising capitolism and staying neutral. As I pointed out before, America was making munitions for the Allies and Germany both. But SINCE Britian ruled the ocean lanes, Germany couldn't get the munitions it needed! As far as gun owners being sick...Voss, I would love to see how you would react to getting assaulted by some street punk, you would probably cry foul and wish that you could've defended yourself. As for me, this is my country, and my home and family... THIS I'LL DEFEND!
By the way I believe this discussion of variying topics has happened before and we all agreed that t kept life in the Forum to be able to branch out to diverse topics. I think those that keep talking about this Delphi Website must frequent it alot. Now that I've exercised my 1st Amendment Rights I'll close with this, WW1 Aviation can be very boring when you take the human element out of it. You can talk facts and figures about about aircraft, fabric, wing structures, and paint schemes....but who made the planes live? Who were the heroes and the villains, the planes? I love history, and not just one element of it! So you purists sit up and take note please?!
VBR,
Jim